WILL THE GAY CARD BE AS BIG AS THE RACE CARD?

WILL THE GAY CARD BE AS BIG AS THE RACE CARD?

After covering the discrimination that was leveled against Professor Margaret Somerville this week at Ryerson University, I have had quite a few letters stating how intolerant I am. Right back at you. Perhaps those afraid of my support of the traditional family are heterophobes?

It is quite clear that I have crossed a line in the minds of some. I have outright supported somebody who is opposed to gay marriage. Yes, I am out of the closet. My hatred has been bared.

While I do not consider my stand on the issue to come anywhere near the level of hatred, there are many who do. Once again, I must state unequivocally that I have no problem with the choices that adults make. What I have a problem with is using it as a political sledge hammer to stifle and silence its opponents and of the blanket labeling of anyone who dares disagree.

The gay card is being used ever so more frequently these days. It is being bandied about like the overused racial card. Some apparently are attempting to cash in on the success users of that card had in silencing critics of anyone and anything connected with it.

James Loney, one of the two hostages that were released last year from Iraq with their heads still intact, has become somewhat of a celebrity. He is now taking the gift of life that was returned to him and is using it to promote his lifestyle.

The Knights of Columbus, who have been rebuked by our courts for their stand on the immorality of the lifestyle, have closed a camp which recruited youth and in which Mr. Loney was a staff member. Mr. Loney is outraged and has charged that the decision was made because he has come out of his closet.

I have a question. If the Knights of Columbus organization adheres to strict moral guidelines and has a religious heritage that it wishes to continue, why would one be surprised to find their endeavor shut down should it not meet the above mentioned guidelines? Further, should a religious or quasi-religious organization not have the right to do so? Obviously, if you are not promoting the values of the organization, you should not have a voice in it. How is that any different than any other job?

In Canada, such an organization has its hands tied. It is not legally able to fire Mr. Loney, nor is it likely to have much success enticing the children of its members to spend the weekend with that person. The only recourse that the organization has left is to gut the entire program.

For the record, Knights of Columbus official Jack Clancey has stated that the decision to close the camp was not based on Mr. Loney’s preference, but was simply part of a review process. As for me, I think that they should have that right.

When the gay agenda gathered steam several years back, many organizations and individuals raised the alarm over anti-hate legislation aimed at protecting the sodomite lobby and of changes to the Charter to include orientation. While decrying the wording of those bills as substantially limiting the freedoms of religious organizations, many were reassured that the church and its affiliates would be protected.

We can now see that this simply is not true. There is an ongoing campaign to annihilate the church’s right to voice its opposition. Indeed, even when it cannot win and simply shuts down programs to protects its membership, it is criticized. The anti-church lobby will not stop until organized religion is destroyed or assimilated.

Another aspect of the thought of males camping with our children is scarcely discussed. One reason we allow our young men to go camping with older men is because there is not supposed to be any sexual attraction. I sure would not allow my young daughter to spend the night with a group of heterosexual men, so why should parents be asked to willingly allow their young sons to spend the night in the company of men? That is simply a double standard and an entirely stupid decision on the part of any parent willing to take such a risk with their child.

This alone is a justifiable enough reason for shutting down the camp in which Mr. Loney has an authoritative position.

On another front, James Loney was recognized yesterday at the pride festivities in Toronto. At a fundraising gala and awards dinner last night, he and partner Dan Hunt were given the “Fearless” award in recognition of their perseverance during their hostage ordeal.

One has to question the title of the award given the fact that Mr. Loney was too afraid to divulge who he really was during his hostage ordeal. To be frightened is natural, but to deny one’s own self and one’s beliefs is hardly a display of fearlessness.